You could also construe some of his deregulation as a positive supply shock. But FTPL story is the most persuasive, I agree.

Using a simple model, we show that it could. Motivated by the model, we estimate a series of counterfactuals showing that, relative to a counterfactual simultaneous adoption on the mean adoption date, the observed staggering actually led to greater mobility reduction. (6/6)

These “positive" spillovers occur mainly when counties share a media market, suggesting that the order communicates info about the public health situation. So staggered adoption = multiple rounds of information treatment. Could it be more effective than simultaneous? (5/6)

Using an adjacent-county-triplets design, we found the opposite!

In response to SHO, not only do visits from adopter counties to non-adopter neighbors decline, but residents of the neighbor counties voluntarily stop going out even though their own county didn’t adopt. (4/6)

Since we lived in jurisdictions that locked down early on, we wondered — do people from early adopters just go to nearby non-adopting counties for their shopping, etc. In other words, does the staggered adoption lead to negative spillovers and reduced policy effectiveness? (3/6)

Paper was born when all of us were social-distancing at home in April 2020. At the time, stay-at-home orders (SHOs) in many U.S. states and counties enforced business closures/gathering bans and required -- without enforcement -- individuals to stay at home. (2/6)

Where’s the bookmark feature when you *really* need it!